(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of
the jury:)

THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson
is again present with counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Blasier, Mr.
Bailey, People represented by Mr. Darden, Miss Clark and Mr. Escobar. Miss
Clark.

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. Good morning. I'm asking leave of the Court
to be heard concerning the terminology of, use of the word "Match" by our
expert, Mr. Deedrick. And the reason I'm asking leave of the Court to be heard
on this is that we have citations for the Court in which such language was used
by the expert testifying, and we also have reference to the very guide Mr.
Bailey was referring to yesterday, which indicates that the use of the term
"Match" is appropriate under these circumstances. We also have--

MR. BAILEY: What page?

MS. CLARK: Page 7. We also have citations coming in by fax from around
the country in which other experts have used the terminology "Match" in the
arena.

THE COURT: Isn't this a little late?

MS. CLARK: Well, I never anticipated the Court would preclude the use of
the word until the ruling yesterday. And I did not have--obviously during the
time I was presenting testimony, I didn't have time to do the research I did
last night. But it had been my anticipation that the Court was going to rule in
favor of the Defense motion in that regard. I would have done the research in
advance, but I did not have any advanced warning of that.

THE COURT: So what would you like me to do?

MS. CLARK: I'm going to cite to the Court the cases, and I would like
the Court to permit the expert to use the terminology because it is very
cumbersome for him to continually be thinking up terms that he would not use in
place of a term he is accustomed to using and has been approved in all the
courts he's testified to thus 400 times prior to this. The hicks guide,
microscopy of hair, which was brought out by Mr. Bailey at sidebar yesterday
states the following: "Hairs found on the rape victim's clothing which match
the suspect's hair serve to corroborate her statements when the suspect denies
any contact," indicating obviously the approval of the use of the terminology
"Match." In People versus Bonnan, 47 Cal. 3D. 808 at page 823, it indicates
that: "The Prosecution presented expert testimony to the following effect:
Among other things, the bodies of Gatlin, Grabs and McCaby each reveal the
presence of foreign hair that matched Defendant's." People versus Thomas, 180
Cal. App. 3D. Page 47 at page 51, that expert testimony is being--was
proffered, and it indicates: "Pubic hair identical to Defendant's was found in
Priscilla's bed. Similarly, pubic hair matching that of Priscilla's was found
in a combing of Defendant's pubic hair at the time of his arrest."

THE COURT: All right. Do you have any cases specifically on point,
counsel, regarding terminology?

MS. CLARK: We have cases coming in by fax as we speak, your Honor. But
the use of the summary of the terminology given in the factual synopses of
these cases, in the course of the Court's own language, which is the Court's
synopsis of the expert testimony, indicates that that terminology was used
appropriately.

THE COURT: No. Do you have any cases specifically on the point of the
terminology?

MS. CLARK: I'm going--I'm going to find out now because the faxes are
coming in. We had--we asked for them last night and they're coming in this
morning. There was a time delay, three-hour time delay. But I think that the
mere fact that we had it used in the guide that Mr. Bailey himself proffered to
the Court as the bible on this subject should lay to rest any issues we have
with respect to the propriety of that terminology. And I apologize to the Court
for not having brought it to the Court's attention sooner, but there was no way
that I could know that this issue was going to be raised by Mr. Bailey or that
there was going to be a ruling that there was. It was raised just yesterday.

THE COURT: No. Counsel, this is an issue that we discussed informally
over the last month, and it's been raised several times.

MS. CLARK: The issue of the word "Match" and hair and fiber?

THE COURT: Absolutely. Absolutely. This is not a new issue. You go back
and find it in the record. I'm certain it's there in the sidebar conversations
at least a dozen times.

MS. CLARK: Then I apologize to the Court.

THE COURT: All right. Do you have any other comment?

MS. CLARK: Yes. I would like the opportunity to present the Court with
the additional cases that are coming in through fax right now. I apologize to
the Court then if I was remiss in not having brought it to--brought these cases
to the Court sooner. I don't recall having had the issue raised and I defer to
the Court's recollection of that and I would ask that the expert be allowed to
use the term.

THE COURT: All right. Specifically, what terminology are you citing to
the Court on page 823?

MS. CLARK: Of--

THE COURT: Bonnan.

MS. CLARK: --Bonnan? At the bottom of the page, your Honor, the last
paragraph, where it says: "The Prosecution presented expert testimony to the
following effect."

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District
Attorneys.)

THE COURT: All right. Any other comment?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. I have a case in front of me now. I would
further cite to the Court from the FBI forensic science research and training
center a report prepared in 1982. The relevant language is on the last line. It
says: "However, the `duplicate' hair criterium for a match should be the
ultimate goal." I'll submit this to Deirdre so the Court can see it. Another
highlighted passage of this symposium--let me quote. "The most important
decision made by the hair examiner is deciding when a hair can be said to match
or be consistent with originating from a particular individual."

THE COURT: Deputy Magnera, would you collect Detective Lange's pager for
me, please.

MS. CLARK: The following cases are being sent to us right now. They are
out-of-state cases, but they deal with an issue of the terminology.

THE COURT: Well, Miss Clark, let's cut to the chase here. Are you asking
for a 402 on the terminology "Match"?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. I have more here as well. From forensic
sciences international: "In essence, an investigator attempts to assess the
likelihood of matching fibers." Again: "Matching fibers were found on only 10
garments searched. "Results of a study to determine the probability of chance
match occurrence as between fibers known to be from different sources," a paper
written by Wilk and Fong and S. Henry Enami in which the abstract begins with
the following: "The results of a study to determine the frequency of chance
match occurrences among fibers."

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: And again, then in another paper published by Richard Bisbing
and Michael Wollner: "Natural variation does not preclude the association of
hair because sometimes variation serves to personalize the hair specimen. When
comparing several hairs from one source, it can sometimes be demonstrated that
the questioned hair not only has the traits of the known hair, but that the
variation in the questioned specimens matches the variation occurring in the
exemplar."

THE COURT: All right. I'll hear from the Defense.

MS. CLARK: Shall I--

THE COURT: Mr. Bailey.

MR. BAILEY: On the page 7 from which Miss Clark read: "It is concluded
that based on this comparison, the examiner may conclude, no. 1, that the hairs
are consistent or similar and could have come from the same source; no. 2, that
the hairs are dissimilar and did not come from the same source or; 3, that the
hairs possess characteristics which are not sufficiently defined to arrive at a
meaningful conclusion." Only those three conclusions are permitted according to
this manual, which, although published in 1977, Mr. Deedrick himself told me on
Wednesday, has never been republished, updated or changed or modified. Every
book that deals with hair and fiber comparison states it in the same terms.
Now, the word "Match" as used in appellate decisions and used once on this page
is a dangerous word because of the connotations to a layman. When you say "A
perfect match," you may be talking about a male and a female who are not
identical, but who fit together well. The word "Match" normally is interpreted
to mean identity. That is the same in every respect. If this jury is given the
idea by these niceties of language which have been deliberately injected
despite your order to the contrary throughout his testimony and used by Miss
Clark with some frequency and the jury gets the impression that this witness is
saying this is O.J. Simpson's hair--

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Bailey.

MR. BAILEY: --even though he has testified under oath that he can never
claim that he has identified a hair as belonging to any one individual, but has
subscribed to the limitations in this FBI manual, which I presume he himself as
section chief would have amended, updated or rewritten if the rules had somehow
changed or the technology advanced to the point where single source
identification was possible, I don't believe it's fair to have him on the one
hand tell the jury, "I can't say that it came from this source," and on the
other hand, "That's a match." It's confusing and it runs the risk that one or
more jurors will interpret that as a positive identification when it is no such
thing and never can be in hair and fiber technology. That's our position on it.
We ask that you continue to prohibit the use of the word "Match" simply because
the dictionary definition brings it perilously close in the minds of many and
in common usage to identity, and that is wrong, unfair, improper and I believe
would be error despite the language in appellate decisions which describe
microscopic consistency as a match. That is not to say that the examiner who
testified in those cases was allowed to use that word in his testimony. And if
he was, I suggest that that was improper. The second matter, your Honor, that I
would like to raise before we bring the jury in, we have some concern based on
a theory spun out by Miss Clark as to how the wrapped-around hair that you
pointed out when we were reviewing the boards a couple days ago on Nicole
Brown's--the wrapped-around fiber on Nicole Brown's hair that was found on
Goldman's shirt got that way. She speculated that there may have been something
Mr. Simpson was doing as the alleged murderer had caused that to wrap around. I
was concerned--I spoke to Mr. Deedrick. He speculates that something was
rolling, and that's how it happened, and I would like some kind of voir dire on
that, your Honor, because if he has no real idea and is simply speculating, I
don't think the question should be put to him. We do know that when Miss Clark
assured you he would explain how that occurred, he leaned over to Mr. Vannatter
and said, "I hope." I got the impression from talking with him yesterday that
he has no clear idea how it happened and is simply speculating, and I would
like to preclude any such speculation if it doesn't have sufficient foundation
before the answer is given and I would like your Honor to make some inquiry
into that aspect of it if you will.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, you want to address that last issue,
the wrapped hair?

MR. SHAPIRO: One second, your Honor, before she--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BAILEY: This just came in, your Honor. I'm sure Mr. Deedrick
can authenticate it, but--from some lawyers in Anchorage, Alaska. They sent us
a quote from a transcript in an Anthony case. "The strongest statement we make
is the hair could have originated from that person." Now, that's the same
witness. He said that before you, your Honor, a couple of times yesterday. And
I don't like to see it embellished any further than it already has been and I
would like to see the limitation of the word "Match" that you imposed yesterday
enforced with some regularity. Thank you.

MS. CLARK: Let me assist the Court. What we have here is a fundamental
lack of understanding on the part of the Defense as to apples and oranges here.
The finding of a match is what permits the expert to draw the conclusion that
the hair could have originated from this person's head. The two are distinct
issues. The finding of a match does not mean that they are, therefore, saying
it came from only this individual. And every time this expert, Mr. Deedrick,
testifies to the fact that he found a match, it will then be concluded by him
that the hair could have originated from Mr. Simpson. He'll never say that the
match indicates identity. But unless he finds a match, he cannot even say it
could have come from the head of Mr. Simpson or the head of Nicole Brown or
Ronald Goldman. That's the issue. And counsel is confused between the
terminology that permits the conclusion ultimately to be reached that he just
read to you and the finding--and the observations that are made that lead to
that conclusion. There are three possible conclusions a hair examiner can
reach, and Mr. Deedrick is in complete conformity with the hicks guide that
says of the three, one is that it could have come from the head of a given
person. But you can not reach that conclusion until you have first found a
match. And that's why we're talking apples and oranges here. And every time the
word "Match" is used by Mr. Deedrick, it will be accompanied by what that
means, which is, it could have come from the head of whoever. So Mr. Bailey is
confused. Those terms do not--it's two separate proceedings and two separate
procedures we're talking about. First you find the match, then you draw the
conclusion. They are not inconsistent, they do not conflict and they do not
mislead, and that's why in previous decisions in previous cases, experts have
so testified. With respect to how the fiber came to be wrapped around the hair,
just as Dr. Lakshmanan gave an educated hypothetical as to how things could
have happened based on his--on reasonable medical certainty and his expertise,
Mr. Deedrick is also an expert of nearly 20 years' experience who may
hypothesize based on his expertise and experience and judgment that the fiber
could have become wrapped around the hair in a couple of possible ways, one of
which is the rolling effect when you brush against--when a fiber--when
someone's sleeve brushes against a hair and then the fiber wraps around the
hair. Another possibility--well, I don't have to get into that. But the bottom
line is that within his experience and judgment, he can hypothesize giving the
educated, reasonable scientific certainty as to how this could have occurred in
his experience. That's his job. He's an expert. That's why we asked him to
testify. If he didn't have that experience and didn't know anymore than you or
I, then why call him? Again, and I do not see any possibility of misleading
this jury with the use of the word "Match." The problem we've having with this
expert, he's being continually having to say words that are--he's unaccustomed
to saying and phrase his findings in ways that are not the norm for him, and so
yes, he slips. He's not used to doing that. For 18 years, he has done something
different. He comes to this court, and now all of a sudden, he can't use the
term he's been using for 18 years, and that's what's causing the problem. He
means no disrespect to the court. And I've been attempting to address the issue
with other phraseology, but I find, having researched the literature, that it
is found to be acceptable not only in the scientific community, but in the
courts as well.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. All right. Counsel, the problem we have
here is, we have a wide range of scientific evidence that has been presented
here. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary, the definition of the
word "Match" is as follows: "One that is as exactly as another, one that forms
an exact pair with another, an exact counterpart." So that terminology is too
close to--excuse me. That terminology overstates the power of this evidence,
and the Court's previous ruling will stand. All right. Let's have the jurors.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the
jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be
seated. All right. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: Let the record reflect we have been rejoined by all the
members of our jury panel. Mr. Deedrick, would you resume the witness stand,
please.

Douglas Deedrick, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening
adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: All right. Good morning again, Mr. Deedrick.

MR. DEEDRICK: Good morning.

THE COURT: Sir, you are reminded you are still under oath. And, Miss
Clark, you may continue with your direct examination.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning.

THE JURY: Good morning.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Mr. Deedrick, when we left off, I was asking you about
the significance of finding two fibers that--a questioned fiber and a known
fiber that exhibited the exact same microscopic characteristics. And what is
the significance of that?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, a fiber association is significant because of the
variation that exists in the environment. That is, there are many different
types of fabrics, there's many different types of fibers, both naturally
occurring and man-made. Because of this wide diversity, it makes a particular
fiber association significant.

MS. CLARK: Let me ask you this. If we saw--if I saw two black cotton
shirts on a rack, they looked the same on the rack, if you were to examine the
fibers from the two of them microscopically, has it ever occurred that you've
seen two garments that appear the same to the naked eye, when you take fibers
from them, you see differences?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, many--many things appear similar, but very few
things are the same in all respects. I've done studies in the past to support
that.

MS. CLARK: Did you examine fibers from the evidence in the clothing of
the victims in this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: Now, in your experience, sir, what is the mobility, what is
the transience of fibers in the manner in which they transfer between objects?
Is it more or less than hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, fibers tend to transfer--

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Lack of foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Fibers will tend to transfer at a greater rate because of
their size. Being much smaller and lighter, they will transfer more easily than
hairs.

MS. CLARK: And what if any significance does that mobility have to you
in determining when a fiber--whether a fiber can be associated with a crime or
with a suspect?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, when two people come into physical contact, there's
a possibility that fibers from the clothing of those individuals may be
transferred. It's called a primary--primary transfer. Fibers that are loose on
the surface that actually did not come from that garment may be transferred as
well. It's called a secondary transfer. Primary from the fabric and indirect
transfer would be secondary, and they occur all the time.

MS. CLARK: Well, what's an example of a secondary transfer?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, a secondary transfer would be one where, for
instance, I sat down in this chair and there were fibers from the suit I wore
yesterday, I would--I possibly could pick up the fibers from that suit, and it
would be a secondary. It didn't come directly from the fabric, but indirectly
through an intermediate--intermediary or another surface, fabric surface. So
primary transfers or direct contact transfers occur all the time as well as
secondary transfers. And in the laboratory, we look for both types of events.

MS. CLARK: Can that also happen in case of hairs, primary and secondary
transfer?

MR. DEEDRICK: The same thing can happen. Hairs can be transferred
directly from a body area such as a head or pubic region. They can also
transfer indirectly. That is hairs that are found on the clothing of a suspect
in a case, which may be--may belong or may have originated from that individual
may be transferred during the contact as well, and that's essentially a
secondary transfer.

MS. CLARK: Is it a common occurrence for us to shed hairs onto our
clothing on a daily basis?

MR. DEEDRICK: It's very common to find one's own hairs on one's own
clothes.

MS. CLARK: And then if, for example, a suspect were to shed hairs on his
clothing and then have contact with the victim in the course of a violent
struggle, might you find hairs from the suspect's clothing, his own hairs,
transferred onto the clothing of the victim?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's very likely to occur, yes.

MS. CLARK: Have you heard of something called the locard exchange
principal?

MR. DEEDRICK: I've heard of it, yes.

MS. CLARK: Can you explain to us what that is?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the locardic change principal states that when two
objects come into contact, physical contact, there's--there's going to be an
exchange of materials. It was originally stated--actually derived from what Mr.
Locard had worked on as a French scientist; that when people work in certain
environments, they come in contact with certain types of materials, they often
will pick up this material on their clothing, thus indicating perhaps the type
of job that they have or what type of vehicle that they may be riding in or
what type of clothing that they're used to wearing or whether they smoke
tobacco or tobacco products. So it was derived from his--his work that he did
in France that dealt with transfer.

MS. CLARK: And does that principal also go to fibers as well?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, same thing. Any type of material, foreign material
or material from a fabric could transfer just as easily during the same thing.
A person may have a particular type of car. Evidence of this might be found on
his clothing. A person may have a particular type of clothing attire, certain
types of fabrics that he wears frequently. These fibers may be found on his
clothing. So these transfers occur all the time.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Let's move on to this case, Mr. Deedrick. When were you
assigned to this case?

MS. CLARK: What exactly is your procedure when you receive evidence from
a local agency for analysis?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the evidence is taking--actually, the evidence is
taken to what's called the evidence control center; and at this location, a
laboratory number is assigned to the case. They indicate in their documentation
that is going to be assigned to the hairs and fibers unit that I'm going to be
what's called the principal examiner in the case. At that point, the evidence
was taken to the unit where it was inventoried or checked in.

MS. CLARK: And when the property is inventoried or checked in, is there
some form that's filled out?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, a work sheet is prepared in all cases. In this case,
it was as well. The items--the questioned items of evidence are listed
numerically, Q item, Q1, Q2, Q3 and so forth. And besides each of these Q
numbers, an indication of what it is. Q1, hair from a particular item. And
besides that, the number generally that identifies it from the police
department or Los Angeles Police Department identification number. All of the
items are checked in and listed on a work sheet, and from this work sheet, the
initial work on the case starts.

MS. CLARK: So you renumber the items submitted with your own
numbering?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MS. CLARK: Q for questioned? That means recovered from the crime scene
and unknown origin?

MR. DEEDRICK: These items may contain questioned items that may be
suitable for comparison with known samples or k's.

MS. CLARK: And all the known samples have a k something, K number?

MR. DEEDRICK: Starts with K1, K2, K3 and--in the initial case as it
comes in. As subsequent submissions come into the laboratory, they're run
consecutively starting with where we left off.

MS. CLARK: So is the work sheet listing out all of your numbering done
first before you begin the actual examination?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. That's correct. You can work--actually you can work
off of a notebook paper too. You don't need a work sheet to start the work. But
it's just a formality. It's part of the documentation.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, before you begin the work of analysis, an
examination, is there some precaution that is taken in terms of the work space,
the work area?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, before you actually start on an individual item to
look at it for material, whether it's hair evidence or fiber evidence, those
areas are cleaned.

MS. CLARK: I mean, with respect to--in this case, the hair and fiber had
already been collected from the evidence items such as clothing and hat and et
cetera.

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MS. CLARK: So you were submitted paper folds, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. All of the initial items that came in were in
sealed either coin envelopes or manila envelopes and they were inventoried from
that. Some of them had to be open just so that they could be numbered, but the
actual coin envelope was not opened at that time.

MS. CLARK: And was there one item of actual evidence that you did
receive with Susan Brockbank on August the 8th?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I consider them all items of evidence, but in actual
fabric, I received the hat, the knit hat that was recovered from the scene.

MS. CLARK: The blue knit cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Before you opened the packages that you received, did you
make any effort to clean surfaces or take precautions to make sure the work
space was clean?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't--I'm not sure exactly what you're--what stage
you're referring to. When the initial check-in, there's paper spread out on the
table and the items are inventoried, but they're all in sealed--a sealed
condition at that time. As each individual item is ready for examination, the
surface is prepared and clean, clean paper is put down, forceps or tweezers are
cleaned, lab coats are worn, all precautions that we feel necessary to preclude
the possibility of contamination.

MS. CLARK: And is the paper changed and forceps examined for cleanliness
between the examination of each item?

MR. DEEDRICK: Each item. The forceps are examined under the
stereomicroscope just to be sure that there's nothing on them, hands are clean,
new paper.

MS. CLARK: And did both you and Susan Brockbank wear white lab coats
during the examinations of all items?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, you're right. We did supply her with a lab coat.

MS. CLARK: All right. Earlier, did I ask you to examine a board that we
have marked as People's 436 entitled "The chain of custody board"?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. I remember looking at it.

MS. CLARK: And did you examine all of the items contained on that board
to determine whether they accurately reflected the appearance of the items you
received for the examination in this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. If I could just take one last look.

MS. CLARK: Please.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Escobar, you're going to have to move that
back because it's blocking out juror no. 7.

MR. ESCOBAR: Okay.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, gentlemen. Miss Clark. You want
to have Mr. Deedrick step down and look at this?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

(The witness complies.)

MR. DEEDRICK: The only--the only difference that--that I see here
on this particular board is item no. 113, and it indicates that the FBI numbers
Q8A, B1, B2, B3, C, they're not actually in the photographs, but they came in
that envelope.

MS. CLARK: And so those are the--those Q8 Q8A, B1, B2, B3, C and Q9
through 19--I'll give it to the Court reporter later--were all--and Q47 were
all the numbers that you assigned to what was removed from the package depicted
on this chain board for item no. 113?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And Q9 through 19, were those slides that were already
prepared when they arrived at the FBI on August 8th?

MR. DEEDRICK: They were. And I believe this one, this one blue mailer
here (Indicating), plastic mailer is Q9, but there were glass microscope
slides prepared and delivered for examination.

MS. CLARK: Okay. So that's an example of what you got?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's an example, yes.

MS. CLARK: Then is everything on that board accurate with respect to the
packages that you received from LAPD?

MR. DEEDRICK: It was accurate, yes.

MS. CLARK: And does it accurately reflect the dates on which you
received these items?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, it does.

MS. CLARK: Not all items were received on August 8th, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Some were received later?

MR. DEEDRICK: Later.

MS. CLARK: All right. Oh, there is one more board actually.

MR. DEEDRICK: I'll hang around.

MS. CLARK: 451.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: All right. This is People's 451, sir. I also asked I
think that you look at this earlier to determine whether the information
reflected on it concerning what was received by you at the FBI and when is
correct.

MR. DEEDRICK: This board is correct.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, sir.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Sir, with respect to the results of your examinations
in this case--before we step into that, I just wanted to ask you in general
with regard to hair comparisons. What conclusions can you draw from the
comparison of hairs and what in your opinion is the significance of hairs that
exhibit the same exact microscopic characteristics?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, if hairs exhibit the same microscopic
characteristics, it indicates that these hairs could have originated from that
individual. If hairs are different and they're different--significantly
different, it's possible to say that this hair or hairs could not have
originated from a given individual. On some occasions, similarities and
characteristics and differences both exist and no conclusion may be reached
regarding that type of comparison. So essentially there are three
comparison--three conclusions that are reached.

MS. CLARK: In your examination of the hairs collected from the evidence
in this case, sir, did you find any hairs that matched those of Nicole Brown?

MR. BAILEY: Object. Move to strike.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. With the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

MS. CLARK: I didn't mean to say it. I just realized when I looked
at the screen.

THE COURT: Miss Clark, you're flirting with contempt.

MS. CLARK: Not intentionally, your Honor. I did not mean to say it.

THE COURT: You're warned. Consider yourself warned. If I hear that word
again, it's going to be--somebody is going to be in jail over the weekend.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: Proceed.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: In your examination of the hairs collected from the evidence
items in this case, sir, did you find any hairs that exhibited the same
microscopic characteristics as those of Nicole Brown?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And were these head hairs, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: They were.

MS. CLARK: Where did you find those hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: These hairs were found on the glove identified as
originating from the Rockingham location, a glove found at the Bundy location
as well as from the knit hat that was recovered at the Bundy location. Hairs
that exhibited the same characteristics as those of Nicole Brown Simpson were
also found on the pants and shirt of Ronald Goldman.

MS. CLARK: Now, have you seen each of those items that you've just
described, the glove recovered at Rockingham, the glove recovered at Bundy, the
blue knit cap recovered at Bundy and the pants and shirt of Ronald Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: I have, yes.

MS. CLARK: And I'm going to direct your attention to the monitor.

MS. CLARK: These are items previously marked in evidence, your Honor.
Okay. This is People's 55-G.

THE COURT: All right. 55-G appears to be a photo of the Rockingham
glove.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: And this is People's--

MS. CLARK: Do you recognize this item as well, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, that looks like a glove at a crime scene.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Does it look like one of the two gloves that you saw in
this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, one of the gloves I did look at came from the Bundy
crime scene. I believe this is that glove.

MS. CLARK: This is People's 45-A.

THE COURT: All right. Appears to be the Bundy glove.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District
Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: This is kind of hard to see. The photographs on the
screen now is People's 56. It's a laser and a little difficult to see, your
Honor. I'm going to ask to zoom it in on the elmo if I can.

MS. CLARK: People's 56-I, do you recall you indicated earlier that on
August 8th, one item of the actual fabric itself was transported to you, you
remarked the blue knit cap. Does this appear to be that cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: It does, yes.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Your Honor may need to cut the feed for this photo.

MS. CLARK: People's 43-F.

MS. CLARK: And the pants and shirt belonging to Ronald Goldman, do you
recall having seen those items, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: And do those appear to be them?

MR. DEEDRICK: They do.

MS. CLARK: And those are the items on which you found the head hairs of
Nicole Brown that appear to exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as
those of Nicole Brown?

MR. BAILEY: May we approach, your Honor?

THE COURT: No.

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. There were hairs that were found on these items that
exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as the known hairs submitted to
me from Nicole Brown Simpson.

MS. CLARK: And I have a board here, your Honor, I ask be marked next in
order, People's 4--

MS. CLARK: Did any of the hairs that you found on either of the gloves
or the clothing of Mr. Goldman appear to be forcibly removed?

MR. DEEDRICK: The one hair on the Rockingham glove did appear to be
forcibly removed. It's approximately 12 inches long and was broken at the
proximal end or at the end nearest the point of attachment near the skin. The
hairs from Ronald Goldman's shirt, which was my Q23, there were about 35
forcibly removed hairs exhibiting the same microscopic characteristics as those
of Nicole Brown Simpson.

MS. CLARK: And what about the hairs that were on the Bundy glove? What
did those hairs look like?

MR. DEEDRICK: They were--they were fragments. They were--actually it was
a treated head hair fragment.

MS. CLARK: And when you say fragments, what does that mean?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it's a portion of a hair. There was no root present
on the hair.

MS. CLARK: What about the hairs that could have come from Nicole Brown
that you found on Ronald Goldman's pants and knit hat? What did those hairs
look like?

MR. DEEDRICK: They were fragmentary as well, under--under three and a
half inches. No roots were present on any of these.

MS. CLARK: Were they naturally shed?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. Naturally shed hair will have a root that has a club
shape like I previously testified to, and none of these had roots of that
condition.

MS. CLARK: None of these--in other words, none of the hairs that could
have come from Nicole Brown had the appearance--roots the appearance of which
would show that they were naturally shed?

MR. DEEDRICK: They did not.

MS. CLARK: Did you prepare a chart depicting the microscopic appearance
of the hairs, the known head hairs of Nicole Brown and the hairs that you
determined could have come from her from the evidence items?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Fairtlough, we may need to raise that up.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: This is as high as this particular easel goes unless I
swap easels.

THE COURT: Let's swap easels because the bottom is obstructed by the
projector here.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Escobar, you need to move that back as far as you
can so you don't block the witness. All right. 2:30. Can you see that? 165, can
you see that?

JUROR NO. 165: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Thank you. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, does this depict all of the hairs Nicole
Brown--Nicole Brown's known exemplar that you determined to exhibit the same
microscopic characteristics as the hair recovered from the evidence in this
case?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't believe all of the hairs. The questioned hairs
were photographed that are represented on that board.

MS. CLARK: Is this a representative sample of what you saw under the
microscope?

MR. DEEDRICK: It is, yes.

MS. CLARK: If you would, sir, could you please step down and explain to
the jury what it is that you saw that was significant to you to cause you to
come to the conclusion you did with respect to the hairs that are depicted on
this board that I'd ask be marked People's 476.

THE COURT: 476.

(Peo's 476 for id = board)

(The witness complies.)

MR. DEEDRICK: With respect to questioned hair no. 1, it was a
12-inch long hair that was recovered from the--identified as recovered from the
Rockingham glove. I photographed an area of the known, which was K4, known
sample no. 4 from Nicole Brown Simpson, an area from the Rockingham glove
again, that being Q1. Always keep in mind that these photographs are about 250
magnification, and I'm just representing an area that appeared to me to be
similar microscopically. I'm not trying to do an entire hair examination for
you. I'm just trying to represent what the area that I saw that exhibited the
same characteristics. The hair also appeared to be lighter in certain areas.
The hair from--another hair from the Rockingham glove had some coloration to it
or bleaching or something that altered the color and made it lighter. So that's
another hair that was recovered from the Rockingham glove. 7B was recovered
from the Bundy glove. Again, that was I believe about six inches long or so and
it did not have a root. As you can see, there's a range of color as people have
depending on the hairs that you're attempting to compare. K4 is an area that
has been very light--lightened, again artificially lightened hair that was
recovered. This is the same hair, an area of one portion of the hair and the
area of the hair which is further out nearest to the tip. This known sample was
compared with Q23. And again, I mentioned that there were about 35 hairs to
compare it to, but this is just one of the hairs. The last photograph depicts
the condition of the roots that were present in both the known sample and the
questioned sample. Again, this just indicating how a hair would look if it's
been forcibly removed. The reddish substance that you see appears to be
blood.

MS. CLARK: Now, you earlier spoke to us about the range of
characteristics that you'll find on the head of any individual. Do these hairs
that you photographed here from the known sample of Miss Brown exhibit that
range of characteristics you spoke of?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. You can see that there's a range, that not all hairs
are all--are duplicates of each other, that some hairs are lighter, some hairs
are darker, some hairs have medullation, some hairs don't. It just depends upon
the range of characteristics of that individual. And here you see that an area
of the hair that probably was down a little bit further near the base was a
little bit darker whereas some hairs were lighter in certain portions of the
hair. This particular--this piece of hair that was recovered from--identified
as coming from the Rockingham glove would have been probably a more distal
portion out towards the tip as opposed to a full-length hair which would
indicate a darker portion of the hair, the same thing with the hair fragment
that came from the Bundy glove (Indicating). It's probably a distal
portion as opposed to something that's nearer to the base of the hair.

MS. CLARK: When you say "The base of the hair," what end is that?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's proximal, nearest to the skin.

MS. CLARK: To the scalp?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right, where it's attached.

MS. CLARK: Now, you indicated earlier in your testimony that when you do
a hair examination, you look through the whole length of the hair, the entire
hair, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. You look through the--everything you have to
compare. Some hairs may be three and a half or less. Some hairs may be 12
inches like in this particular case. So that when a comparison--the comparison
process involves looking for hairs in the known sample that compare both by the
length and how the characteristics change along the length and also doing
regional type comparisons if you have portions of hair, that is if the hair
portion--if the question is, could this portion of hair come from that
individual, the comparison would be with areas of the hair that have the same
microscopic characteristics, which might be out at the end of the hair. So the
comparison is based on what you have.

MS. CLARK: Now, you indicated that this was like 250 times
magnification?

MR. DEEDRICK: It's approximately 250 times, yes.

MS. CLARK: So do these photographs depict the entire length of the hair
that you saw when you performed your examination?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. If I did--for instance, if I--if I'd wanted a
photograph--serial photographs of each section of that hair, it would be about
25 feet long. So we don't do that. We just try to take an area that--that
appears to represent the conclusion that--that's being drawn from that
comparison.

MS. CLARK: Okay. You only photographed I think on this board two of the
hairs you determined to exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as Nicole
Brown on the Rockingham glove. In this board, they're both labeled Q1 on the
far left as I face it?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: How many hairs did you actually find on the Rockingham glove
that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as the hairs of Nicole
Brown?

MR. DEEDRICK: I believe there were four were recovered from that item.

MS. CLARK: Can you describe what those hairs on the Rockingham glove
looked like?

MR. DEEDRICK: As I said, the one was approximately 12 inches long and it
was broken at the proximal end or nearest to where the hair attaches itself to
the scalp. The others were fragments. Again, I don't recall the exact length,
but they were shorter fragments.

MS. CLARK: Is there any significance to the fact, sir, that you found
the same microscopic characteristics in several questioned hairs, that is hairs
collected from the evidence in this case as the known standard for Nicole
Brown?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the more associations that are made between hairs
that vary a little bit in characteristics, the more significant that
association is because you're associating different hairs that also appear in
the known sample.

MS. CLARK: How many hairs did you find that exhibited the same
microscopic characteristics as those of Nicole Brown on the Bundy glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: There was one.

MS. CLARK: And how many hairs did you find on Mr. Goldman's shirt that
exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of Nicole Brown?

MR. DEEDRICK: There were approximately 35 on the shirt.

MS. CLARK: Were they forcibly removed or naturally shed?

MR. DEEDRICK: As I said, they were forcibly removed.

MS. CLARK: What in your experience, sir, could account for the hairs
that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of Nicole Brown on
Ron Goldman's shirt?

MR. DEEDRICK: Either a primary or a secondary transfer. Either came
there directly from the head of Nicole Brown Simpson or they were transported
there as a secondary transfer.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: You may resume your seat.

(The witness complies.)

MS. CLARK: All right. Sir, I would like to pose for you a
hypothetical if I may. You indicated that the finding of hairs that exhibited
the same microscopic characteristics as those of Nicole Brown on Ron Goldman's
shirt could be there by primary or secondary transfer. If you were to assume
the following events, sir. That the killer pulled back Nicole's head with his
hand, with his left hand in order to slit her throat with his right hand and
then went over to Ron Goldman for final attack, touching him in the process
with the hand that held Nicole's hair by the head, could that account for the
hairs that you found on Ron Goldman's shirt?

MR. BAILEY: Object. He hasn't qualified in this area.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. That could account for the presence of those hairs.

MS. CLARK: You also indicated that you found more hairs that exhibited
the same microscopic characteristics as those of Nicole Brown on the Rockingham
glove than on the Bundy glove, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Now, are you aware that the Bundy glove was found at the
scene of the crime of the murder?

MR. DEEDRICK: I am, yes.

MS. CLARK: And that the Rockingham glove was found at the Defendant's
residence?

MR. DEEDRICK: I am, yes.

MS. CLARK: What does that finding indicate to you based on your
experience with respect to how long each of those gloves remained on the hands
of the killer during the murders?

MR. BAILEY: Well, I object. Foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: You indicated earlier, sir, that with respect to fibers, they
have--they move freely, more freely than hairs, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. They do transfer more easily.

MS. CLARK: Let me pose this to you in the form of a hypothetical. If the
killer, while wearing both gloves, launched an initial attack on Nicole by
knocking her unconscious, having very limited contact with her in that initial
contact and the subsequently lost the Bundy glove early in the struggle with
Ron Goldman, could that account for the fact that you found more of the hairs
that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as Nicole Brown's hair on
the Rockingham glove than on the Bundy glove?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained. It's not an appropriate hypothetical. Let me see
counsel at sidebar without the reporter.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

MS. CLARK: I'm trying to remember how many you said. You
indicated to us, sir, that you've worked on how many hair and fiber cases?

MR. DEEDRICK: 4,000 or so.

MS. CLARK: And what percentage of those 4,000 involved stabbings?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, many. A lot of stabbing cases.

MS. CLARK: And have you made certain observations in the course of the
work you've done on those stabbing cases concerning what kind of hair transfers
and fiber transfers you're likely to find?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, surprisingly with stabbing cases, hair transfers
between the assailant and the victim are not commonly found.

MS. CLARK: And why is that?

MR. DEEDRICK: It may be the fact that it's at arm's length as opposed to
a lot of direct physical contact between the bodies.

MR. BAILEY: Well, I move to strike. That's speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: And you base that on?

MR. DEEDRICK: Just based on what I've seen over the years looking at the
clothing worn by an individual suspected of being involved in stabbings and
also from the victims. The best evidence that is seen many times in stabbing
cases are the fiber transfers that are present on the knife or the weapon that
is recovered from a suspect in the case, and that generally is the best
evidence and most commonly seen, more so than hair transfers.

MS. CLARK: And in those cases, have you had occasion to examine items of
evidence that bore the hairs that were--that exhibited the same microscopic
characteristics as the hairs of the victims?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't know if I quite understand that question.

MS. CLARK: Okay. In this particular case, you examined the Rockingham
and the Bundy gloves, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: And you examined also the hair and fiber collected from those
gloves, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And you found hairs that exhibited the same microscopic
characteristics on both gloves as those seen by--in the hairs of Nicole
Brown?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And you found more of such hairs on the Rockingham glove than
the Bundy glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: In your past experience in other stabbing cases, have you
found hairs consistent with those of the victims on various items of evidence
at the crime scene?

MR. DEEDRICK: I don't think I can answer this question that you're
posing based on past experience. I've seen a lot of different things. I can't
be specific in this instance.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Have you ever had cases where you've found more hair on
one item than on another that is consistent with that of a victim?

MR. DEEDRICK: Sure. And it just depends on the nature of the contact.
One can derive certain conclusions from the presence of hair evidence on
certain items indicating that perhaps more contact may have occurred with that
particular item as to where the source of the material came from.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And as a matter of your expertise and simple reason and
logic, would it be fair to state that an item of clothing worn for a very short
period of time during an attack will be likely to have less hair and fiber than
an item worn for a longer period of time during the attack?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Argumentative, speculative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the shorter the duration of the contact, many times
the less amount of material that may be picked up or transferred to another
item.

MS. CLARK: All right. In your examination of the hairs and fibers
collected from the evidence in this case, did you find any hairs that you found
to exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as those of Ronald Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And again, were those head hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: They were.

MS. CLARK: And where did you find those head hairs, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, there were hairs that were recovered from Mr.
Goldman's shirt, which was my Q23, and there were also hairs recovered from the
Rockingham glove.

MS. CLARK: You indicated you found those hairs on the Rockingham
glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: That exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those
of Ron Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: And did those hairs appear to be naturally shed or forcibly
removed?

MR. DEEDRICK: They were cut and torn.

MS. CLARK: Then the hairs that you found on Ron Goldman's shirt that you
determined to have--to exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as his
known hair, what appearance did they have?

MR. DEEDRICK: They were both cut, torn and forcibly removed. They're all
forcibly removed, but in the sense that some had roots, some didn't.

MS. CLARK: And how many of the hairs consistent with those of Ron
Goldman did you find on the Rockingham glove?

MS. CLARK: Did you prepare a chart to demonstrate what you saw through
the microscope and what you based your conclusion on?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: Now, again, does this depict all of the questioned hairs that
you determined were consistent with a known sample of Ron Goldman or only a
representative sample?

MR. DEEDRICK: It's a--it's a representation.

THE COURT: All right. This will be marked 477?

MS. CLARK: 477.

(Peo's 477 for id = board)

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. Over at the sidebar, please, with
the court reporter.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We're over at the sidebar. What was going on between
you and the jurors?

MR. BAILEY: Nothing. I said to Mr. Morton, "Please be careful not to
block this gentleman." I never spoke to the juror.

THE COURT: All right. I saw the juror react to something. I'm going to
caution all counsel to make certain there are no comments going on in the
proximity of the jury box. Be careful with that, Mr. Bailey.

MR. BAILEY: Very well.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

MS. CLARK: And this is People's 477. If you would step down, Mr.
Deedrick, and explain to the jury what it is you're trying to show with these
photographs.

(The witness complies.)

MR. DEEDRICK: Again, these are photographs at about 250
magnification. The known sample, these two photographs were taken from the
actual hairs that were submitted from Ronald Goldman. This portion of hair here
that you see came from--identifies from the Rockingham glove. This particular
portion of the hair came from Mr. Goldman's shirt (Indicating).
Comparison over on the far right represents a hair--it's one of the hairs that
actually came off of his shirt, and there were a lot of hairs that were on his
shirt. The other hair from--identified from the Rockingham glove is represented
by the bottom photograph. They certainly indicate a pretty good range of
characteristics from medullated hairs, which have a dark medulla, to trace or
discontinuous, and also the same present on the other hairs.

MS. CLARK: May the record reflect that when the witness referred to
"Medullated hairs," those that have a dark medulla, he was referring to the
photographs to the very far left, which is labeled as K1, and the photograph
under that labeled Q3C, hair from Rockingham glove?

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: All right. Thank you, sir. Now, Mr. Deedrick, did you find
any human hairs in the paper fold marked Q3A, which was hair removed from the
Rockingham glove, that did not exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as
either Ron Goldman or Nicole Brown?

MR. DEEDRICK: Could I refresh my memory, please?

MS. CLARK: Certainly.

MR. DEEDRICK: Thank you. Yes. There was one short Caucasian head hair
about one-inch long, light brown, that was dissimilar to the known hair
standards that I received.

MS. CLARK: Was that hair naturally shed or forcibly removed?

MR. DEEDRICK: It was a naturally shed hair.

MS. CLARK: Now, were the hair standards that you received that were
taken by the Coroner from Ron Goldman, were those naturally shed hairs or
forcibly removed?

MR. DEEDRICK: They were all forcibly removed.

MS. CLARK: Does that have any impact on your ability to make an
effective comparison between questioned hair and known hair standard?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it's much easier to compare, again, apples with
apples, oranges with oranges. The hairs that are forcibly removed will compare
better with hairs that are forcibly removed. The same thing as with naturally
shed hairs. As the hair reaches the stage when it's ready to come out, it tends
to look a little different. It often gets lighter. It loses a lot of the
medullation or the canal that's found in the center of the hair and will look
different. That's why I request combings as well as pullings when known samples
are collected.

MS. CLARK: And did you have any such combings in the standard submitted
to you from the Coroner's office?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

MS. CLARK: For Ronald Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: All right. Did you receive and examine hair samples from
police and crime personnel and laboratory personnel that were involved in this
case?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And did those samples include Detectives Phillips, Fuhrman,
Vannatter and Lange?

MR. DEEDRICK: It did, yes.

MS. CLARK: Did you compare their known hair standards of those
detectives to this one-inch light brown hair on the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And what was the result?

MR. DEEDRICK: The one questioned hair from the Rockingham glove could
not have originated from these individuals.

MS. CLARK: Any of them?

MR. DEEDRICK: Not from the individuals you just mentioned. None of the
elimination standards exhibited the same characteristics.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I have another board that I would like to be
marked People's 478.

THE COURT: 478.

(Peo's 478 for id = board)

MS. CLARK: And for the record, the title of the board that we've
just asked to be marked 478 is "Elimination head hair samples."

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. CLARK: If you would step down, sir, and take a look at this board.

(The witness complies.)

MS. CLARK: There are names underneath each of the photographs.
There's one photograph for each name, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And did you cause those photographs to be taken, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: I took the photographs, yes.

MS. CLARK: And do those represent all of the people's who--all of the
lab and crime scene, police personnel whose head hair standards were sent to
you for comparison purposes?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. It's my understanding that these people were either
at the crime scene or associated with the evidence in some way.

MS. CLARK: And did you--are these the representative hair of each of
them? What is this?

MR. DEEDRICK: It's just a representation of hairs that were found in the
known samples from each individual. The comparison process that I talked about
previously with the hair from the Rockingham glove was not compared with the
photographs. The hair was compared with the actual samples. This is just a
representation of the hairs of each individual.

MS. CLARK: So when you made your comparison, sir, you didn't compare
photographs, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: I never compare photographs, no.

MS. CLARK: The photographs are just done as a demonstration to the
jury?

MR. DEEDRICK: Just as illustration for the jury to be able to see what
I'm seeing under the microscope.

MS. CLARK: With respect to all of these hair samples, did any of them
even come close to having the same microscopic characteristics as the hair that
you've described from the Rockingham glove, that light brown Caucasian hair?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, we're playing with words again. I mean, light brown
is light brown, but microscopically, these hairs do not exhibit the same
microscopic characteristics.

MS. CLARK: Sir, of all the known hair samples you received in this case
from the police, the lab personnel, the crime scene personnel and the two
victims, Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown--and did you do your own as well?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did my own just to make sure it wasn't one of mine.

MS. CLARK: So you even compared your own hair to that one light brown
Caucasian hair on the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Of all of the samples that you compared, including
those of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, was there any one sample that did come
close to exhibiting the same microscopic characteristics as those in the short
light brown Caucasian hair on the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: The only sample that had an area of the hair that was
close was the known sample from Ronald Goldman, and that would have been the
proximal portion of the hair only, that nearest the root.

MS. CLARK: And that hair on the Rockingham glove, that was naturally
shed?

MR. DEEDRICK: That was naturally shed and it was about an inch long,
right, and his hairs were about five or so, five and a half.

MS. CLARK: And you had no naturally shed hairs from the Coroner's office
for Ronald Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

MS. CLARK: Do people shed their hairs--I think you indicated
earlier--naturally every day on their clothing, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: I've read a hundred hairs a day may be shed during the
day.

MS. CLARK: Let me pose to you a hypothetical, sir. If Ronald Goldman at
the time that he was attacked had naturally shed hairs already on his shirt and
then was attacked by the killer wearing the glove found at Rockingham, could
that account for the naturally shed hair found on the Rockingham glove that did
not exactly exhibit the same characteristics microscopically as those of Ronald
Goldman?

MR. BAILEY: Object, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: I've stated previously that hairs can be transferred
either directly from the head, which would be a primary type transfer, or
secondarily. Hairs that are found on the clothing of an individual may be
transferred during that contact just as well, and it happens frequently. So the
possibility does exist that that hair may have been on the clothing of Ron
Goldman during the contact and been exchanged.

MS. CLARK: Now, did you find any of the hairs that are consistent with
those of Ron Goldman on the Bundy glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

MS. CLARK: And could the Bundy glove coming off early in the struggle
with Ron Goldman account for that lack of hair found on that glove?

MR. BAILEY: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Well, what in your experience, sir, would account for the
failure to find any of--hairs consistent with Ron Goldman on the Bundy glove?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Lack of foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: All right. You did find cut, torn and forcibly removed hairs
on the Rockingham glove consistent with those of Ron Goldman, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they were cut and torn, and again, that's forcible
removal. Those were found on the Rockingham glove.

MS. CLARK: Let me give you the following hypothetical with respect to
the findings on that glove, sir. If the attacker is wearing that Rockingham
glove and holding the knife in his right hand, which is the Rockingham glove
hand, and stabs Ron Goldman in the head and neck area, are those circumstances
consistent with the cut and damaged hairs that you found that were collected
from the Rockingham glove?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Foundation, speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, they would be consistent with that.

MS. CLARK: Now, did you find any hairs consistent with those of Ron
Goldman in the hair and fiber evidence recovered from Nicole's dress?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

MS. CLARK: Sir, in your experience, what is more conducive to the
transfer of hair and fiber during an attack? One in which there is extensive
conduct--contact with the victim--between the victim and killer or one in which
there is very limited contact?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, from my experience and also from studies that have
been done regarding transfer and persistence of materials, the longer the
duration, the more involved the contact up to a certain point, the greater the
amount of material that's going to be transferred back and forth.

MS. CLARK: So let me ask you this hypothetical, sir. If the killer,
after having stabbed an incapacitated Ron Goldman, went over to Nicole and
limited the contact with her to merely pulling back her head with his left hand
in order to slash her throat without having any further contact with her body,
are those events consistent with the fact that you found none of the hairs
consistent with Ron Goldman on her clothing?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well the more limited the contact, as I said, the less
likely that hair and fiber evidence might be found. So again, not knowing all
the circumstances, I can only go by experience, and you're talking about a time
factor and a contact factor. The more limited the time, the more limited the
contact, the less likely you're going to find evidence of a transfer.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And you're not saying, sir, that the events had to
happen just the way I've described; only that it is a reasonable and logical
conclusion in your experience and judgment?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Are you saying that the events had to happen exactly as I've
described in my hypothetical, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: Oh, no. No. I can only go by what I see. There's some
indications of directionality, but there's no way to know with absolute
certainty the events.

MS. CLARK: Then on what do you base your opinion that the events I
described are a reasonable--a reasonable conclusion based on what you found in
the evidence?

MR. BAILEY: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the amount of evidence and the location of the
evidence indicates to me that the directionality went from Nicole Brown Simpson
to Ronald Goldman, in that direction, as opposed to coming back in as much as
there's nothing on her items from Ronald Goldman.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

THE COURT: Miss Clark, five minutes.

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: All right. Then as a very basic and simple conclusion, can
you draw the conclusion based on your findings that the killer wore the
Rockingham glove during the attack on both Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: What conclusion can you draw, sir, from the fact that you
found hairs consistent with both Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman on the
Rockingham glove concerning whether or not it was worn during their attack?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it's clear to me based on what I see and what I know
about the significance of hair examinations that that glove was there at the
crime scene.

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, you also indicated that you received--well, I
don't know if you did or not, yet. Did you receive hairs--excuse me.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, may I peel off the results concerning Ronald
Goldman?

THE COURT: Yes. And you're referring to exhibit?

MS. CLARK: 475?

THE COURT: 475.

MS. CLARK: 475. Thank you.

MS. CLARK: All right. When you first received the hair and fiber
evidence collected in this case, sir, on August 8th, did you find any animal
hairs in your examination of the evidence?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And did you determine what kind of animal hairs those were?

MR. DEEDRICK: Most of the animal hairs were dog hairs.

MS. CLARK: Now, I think you indicated earlier in your testimony
yesterday, sir, that you can determine the difference between animal hairs and
human hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, I can.

MS. CLARK: And how do you do that?

MR. DEEDRICK: By microscopic structure of the hair. The root is
different, it has a different shape. The medulla looks different. The scale
patterns look different. There are other--a lot of characteristics. Pretty easy
to distinguish animal hairs from human hairs.

MS. CLARK: Can you tell the difference between dog hairs and cat
hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: I can, yes.

MS. CLARK: How do you do that?

MR. DEEDRICK: Same thing. Just a lot of it is just experience and
looking at the microscopic characteristics and looking at animal hairs for a
lot of years.

MS. CLARK: Can you--can you identify different breeds of dogs through
your microscopic comparison?

MR. DEEDRICK: That is possible to do, yes.

MS. CLARK: When you conducted the examination of the dog hair samples in
this case, did you make any determinations concerning the breed?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not attempt to do that initially.

MS. CLARK: And why is that?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I had no particular reason to do it at the time. I
was focusing most of my attention on the human hairs as opposed to the animal
hairs.

MS. CLARK: At some point, did you attempt to make that determination in
this case?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I did receive animal hairs, dog hair standards at a
later date, and using those hair standards, I conducted my comparisons.

MS. CLARK: But as of August 8th, you only had questioned hairs, that is
hairs recovered from the evidence?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's all I had, yes.

MS. CLARK: No known standards taken from particular dogs?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did not.

MS. CLARK: Can you say that a particular dog hair came from any one
particular dog?

MR. DEEDRICK: Unless I pull it myself, I can't.

MS. CLARK: And why is that?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, because animal hairs such as dog hairs do not
possess enough individuality in their microscopic characteristics to say with
certainty that it originated from that dog let's say to the exclusion of other
similar dogs. For instance, if there's a white Akita--two or three white Akitas
that have the same markings and have the same apparent hair color, their hairs
may look very similar. So it would be difficult to say it came from one dog and
not another.

MS. CLARK: So what does it mean when you say that this questioned dog
hair has the same microscopic characteristics as the known sample collected
from this particular dog?

MR. DEEDRICK: Essentially it means that that questioned hair or hairs
could have originated from that dog. It's just another piece in the puzzle.

MS. CLARK: And you indicated known dog hair samples were submitted to
you from Kato the dog and from Chachi?

MR. DEEDRICK: They were, yes.

MS. CLARK: Want to take a break now?

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our mid
morning break at this time. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. And
we'll see you back here in about 15 minutes. Mr. Deedrick, you can step down.

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of
the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter.
Counsel, before we conclude with Mr. Deedrick, any comment regarding a proposal
to view the crime scene one additional time? I anticipated a response by
yesterday, did not receive a response from either side. So I anticipate both
sides are withdrawing their request?

MS. CLARK: Actually, your Honor, I believe that we expected--the People
understood that everyone agreed to it and so felt there was no response
necessary other than to pick the appropriate date. That I thought was the only
open question. And perhaps I'm wrong. But the People would think that--would
urge the Court to do so. I think it would be very helpful for the jury to get a
sense of the conditions that actually prevailed as close as they can to the
night in question. The only thing that we would ask is that we do so at the
appropriate phase of the moon, which I think the Court has already
determined.

THE COURT: Well, if you saw the memo that was prepared by Mr. Byrne. But
I have the feeling that there's so much unnatural ambient lighting that any
phase of the moon at that particular location is probably irrelevant.

MS. CLARK: That may be true.

THE COURT: All right. What's the Defense position?

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, after having gone back to the scene and
reviewing it, the conditions have changed dramatically in terms of foliage,
growth, patterns and lighting; and, therefore, it does not properly in our
opinion replicate the situation on the night of the murders. Since the jury has
already been out once and since it is a very costly and time-consuming endeavor
and it is our desire to present our case as quickly and as expeditiously as
possible and to get this case to the jury as quickly as possible, it is our
position that an additional view is unwarranted and unnecessary, and we
object.

THE COURT: All right. Do you have any photographic comparisons of the
location to depict the change in shrubbery?

MR. SHAPIRO: No, we do not, your Honor. That was just done visually by
myself and other lawyers and investigators.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Well, had I known that the Defense was going to oppose this,
which is something they initially were in favor of, I think that we would have
presented points and authorities to the Court. We think it is the appropriate
thing to do. The Court can make the determination as to the change in
conditions, but according to those who have been recently to the scene, as
recently as this morning, it's my understanding that not only has the scene not
dramatically changed, but it has changed indeed very little in terms of the
foliage and the conditions in which the bodies--of the scene in which the
bodies were found. So I would urge the Court to--what we can do is have
photographs taken for the Court's benefit to review to determine in its
judgment whether you feel that the conditions have changed or perhaps the Court
would like to take a visit to the scene. I know. And you'll have a motorcade.
So perhaps it would be best if we submitted photographs to the Court. But I
think it is important for the jurors to see the condition of that scene at
nighttime, which is really the representative condition of the scene.

THE COURT: All right. Is that the only scene that you wish to have a
viewing of?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor, it is.

THE COURT: All right. So you would forego anything at Rockingham?

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor, we would. Would the Court--would the Court
like us to have photographs taken?

THE COURT: Well, it's either that or I have to go out there myself and
look. I would prefer that you have photographic comparisons of the two before
and after.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Okay. Fine. We will do that. I'm sure if the Court went
out there, it would be a parade.

THE COURT: I think I could manage it. But I would prefer since my
schedule is rather tight between now and Wednesday, but I do need to make a
decision this week and notify both the sheriff's department and the police
department because of their logistics and staffing requirements.

MS. CLARK: Okay. We'll have daytime photographs taken because that would
make it easiest I suppose for the Court to--

THE COURT: Well, the foliage is what I need to know--

MS. CLARK: Exactly.

THE COURT: --since that's the representation.

MS. CLARK: We'll do that. Thank you, your Honor.

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, might I just be heard briefly?

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, one of our concerns is the overlying tree
foliage and the growth patterns of the trees as compared to--

THE COURT: I understand. I understand.

MR. SHAPIRO: --the incident. Also, even though we do object to any view,
if the Court decides to have a view, we would respectfully suggest that both
areas be viewed, Rockingham and Bundy. However, our position is that neither
should be viewed. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. All right. Let's have the jurors,
please.

MS. CLARK: May I indicate one thing, your Honor? It will just take a
second. That if there is--if the Court determines a Rockingham view is
appropriate given the issues involved, there is no interior issue with respect
to Rockingham at night. And if the Court determines it to be appropriate, it
would be solely exterior through the gates if anything, which we submit--

THE COURT: It's relevant to what Mr. Park said he could see and what Mr.
Kaelin said he could see.

MS. CLARK: Although they'd have to take the tarp down that's presently
over the gate because that is a substantial change in circumstance. And I don't
know if that foliage is the same either. So we'd have the same issue.

THE COURT: That issue is nighttime lighting.

MS. CLARK: Correct. Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I informed the Defense that I'm going to
be using the board concerning the dog hair comparisons, but we're not going to
go into the Chachi hairs. So I would ask that those photographs be blocked out
at a later time. I'm going to ask permission of the Court to crop--either crop
the board or remount on a different board the photographs that we're talking
about.

THE COURT: All right.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the
jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be
seated. All right. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the
members of our jury panel. Mr. Deedrick, would you resume the witness stand,
please. All right. Miss Clark, you may continue with your direct examination.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: Mr. Deedrick, when we left off, we were talking about dog
hairs. Did you compare the dog hairs that you found from the crime scene, the
victims' clothing and the glove at Rockingham to the known samples collected
from Nicole's dog Kato?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: Did any of those dog hairs removed from the evidence in this
case exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as those of the dog Kato?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, they did.

MS. CLARK: Which ones?

MR. DEEDRICK: With reference to the Rockingham glove, there were a
number of fur hairs that were found, and I believe I need to go into some
distinction here as to what fur hairs means. Fur hairs are the underlying soft
hairs that form the underbelly or undercoat of animals. Guard hairs are the
coarser hairs, the larger hairs that make up the outer coat, for instance, of a
dog. So they're called guard hairs and fur hairs. The finer hairs, the softer
hairs would be fur hairs. And on the Rockingham glove, there were fur hairs. On
the Bundy glove, on the outside of the Bundy glove, there was a guard hair. On
the knit hat, on the outside, tan and black hairs because the Akita also had
black hairs and the standard. There were a number of hairs recovered from
Goldman's shoes, pants and shirt, all of these being white in color. All of
these compared with the Akita known standard.

MS. CLARK: What is the distinction if any, sir, between your ability to
compare microscopically fur hairs and guard hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the best hairs to compare are guard hairs because
they often give more color variation. They're also larger hairs to work with.
The fur hairs have a little less value. However, when used together, they
increase the significance of the identification.

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, the finding of those hairs consistent with
those of Kato the dog around the--in the area of the items found at the crime
scene at Bundy, what if anything does that indicate to you with respect to the
access of that dog to that location?

MR. DEEDRICK: It wouldn't surprise me to find dog hairs on the items
from the crime scene area if that's where the dog spends a lot of time, because
the dog is going to shed hairs as well.

MS. CLARK: Now, you also found dog hair consistent with that of Kato the
dog on the Rockingham glove?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes.

MS. CLARK: How many?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I'd have to check on that, if I could, please.

MS. CLARK: Please. Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DEEDRICK: I have no specific counts. There were several hairs
that were recovered from the Rockingham glove.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And in your experience, when you say several, what do
you mean?

MR. DEEDRICK: Three or four hairs.

MS. CLARK: Now, those were fur hairs, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: So what is the--what is the strength of your conclusion
concerning the fact that the hairs you found on the Rockingham glove were
consistent with those of Kato the dog?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well--

MR. BAILEY: Objection, your Honor. That's for the jury.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: The conclusion is that the hairs could have originated
from the dog. They exhibited the same microscopic characteristics.

MS. CLARK: And did you cause a--did you create a board to depict some of
the comparisons that you made between the known exemplars from Nicole's dog
Kato and the hairs recovered from the evidence that would be the Rockingham and
Bundy gloves?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: These were not the only areas where you found those hairs,
correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, there were a number of other hairs that I didn't
photograph.

MS. CLARK: And you've already indicated to us where those were found.
Those would be items found at the Bundy crime scene?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. Most of the hairs were from items from the crime
scene. That's correct.

MS. CLARK: I have a board here, your Honor, entitled dog hair
comparisons, ask that it be marked 47--

THE COURT: 8.

MS. CLARK: --8. Thank you.

THE COURT: Excuse me. 479.

MS. CLARK: 479.

(Peo's 479 for id = board)

MS. CLARK: Would you step down, sir, please, and describe for the
jury what you have attempted to depict in these photographs?

(The witness complies.)

MR. DEEDRICK: All right. The known hair sample from Kato the
Akita is up on the top. You can see differences right off in diameter of the
hair and also some of the microscopic characteristics (Indicating).
Hairs that are found on dog I mentioned could be fur hairs. It could also be
the larger guard hairs. Dogs also have hairs that are intermediate. They go
somewhere in-between in size and microscopic characteristics and they're termed
intermediate hairs. This one may be leaning towards intermediate because it's a
little bit larger. All same magnification, about 250 times. The medulla on fur
hairs often may take on this characteristic, just broken up a little bit, as
opposed to larger hairs which may have a continuous medulla. Quite a bit
difference here in the diameter of it.

MS. CLARK: For the record, when the witness said the broken-up medulla,
he was referring to the photograph in the upper left labeled K54, and then as
opposed to this or this, and he gestured to the two photographs to the right of
that also labeled K54 on this diagram.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. DEEDRICK: The bottom photographs, the three photographs represent
the glove recovered at Rockingham, both the finer fur hair as well as a hair
that is a little bit larger in diameter and still probably a fur hair. These
would be represented by photographs labeled Q1 and Q3C. The other photograph,
Q7B is a guard hair that was recovered from the Bundy glove. And it was
compared you see here with the photograph above it, which is K54.

MS. CLARK: Sir, with respect to the hairs you found on the Rockingham
glove consistent with Kato the dog, you indicated that you found three or four?
You wrote several in your report, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: Is the finding of such hairs on the Rockingham glove
accounted for by possible contact between the wearer of that glove, the
murderer, and Kato the dog either during or immediately after the murders?

MR. DEEDRICK: Could have. It could have been a direct transfer from the
dog, or as I stated before, an indirect transfer from hairs at the crime
scene.

MS. CLARK: That were say where?

MR. DEEDRICK: On the ground maybe. Would have to have been on the
ground.

MS. CLARK: Have to have been on the ground?

MR. DEEDRICK: Or perhaps from one of the victims who had been on the
ground and collected the hairs.

MS. CLARK: All right. May I reveal the results on the hair and trace
summary board, People's 475, for Kato the dog, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Could you examine that result board thus far, Mr. Deedrick,
and tell us whether or not they accurately reflect your conclusions in this
case.

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct. It's fine.

MS. CLARK: And for the record, your Honor, we are now showing the
photograph of Nicole's dog Kato, People's--

MR. BAILEY: Your Honor, we object to the term--

MS. CLARK: --48.

MR. BAILEY: --"Nicole's dog." It's not Nicole's dog.

THE COURT: Overruled. Proceed.

MS. CLARK: Sir, did you examine--in your examination of the hairs
collected from the evidence in this case, did you find any hairs that were not
of Caucasian origin?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And of what origin were they?

MR. DEEDRICK: From a black individual.

MS. CLARK: Were they head hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. And limb hairs.

MS. CLARK: And by limb hairs, you mean?

MR. DEEDRICK: Arm or leg.

MS. CLARK: And where did you find those head and limb hairs? From which
items of evidence were they collected?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the head hairs were identified as coming from a cap,
from a Bronco, a knit hat that was recovered from the crime scene, Ronald
Goldman's shirt, and those were the items.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And where was it that you found limb hairs, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: That would have been the Rockingham glove and Ronald
Goldman's shirt.

MS. CLARK: And these limb hairs were also the origin of a black
person?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Did you examine hairs collected from a cap found in the
Defendant's Bronco?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: People's 439, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: Now, what kind of hairs did you find collected from this cap,
sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, there were two head hairs that appeared to be
naturally shed.

MS. CLARK: And what condition were they in?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they appeared--some of them had chew marks present
on them. They look like normal head hairs, naturally shed.

MS. CLARK: And what does that mean, "Chew marks"?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, hairs that may lay around for a while. In vehicles,
it's not uncommon to see hairs that have been chewed on by either a beetle or
some other insect. They take awhile to chew through them. So when we got to
them, it just looks like a bite mark's been taken out of them.

MS. CLARK: And that's not uncommon to find?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it just--it indicates that the hair may have been
laying around for a period of time as opposed to recently shed.

MS. CLARK: And did you compare the hairs recovered from this Bronco cap
to the known exemplars taken from the head of the Defendant?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And what results did you obtain?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, these hairs exhibited the same microscopic
characteristics, and accordingly could have originated from the Defendant.

MS. CLARK: So you found hairs consistent with those of the Defendant in
a cap found in his car. Was that a big surprise?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, if that's his hat, it's not a surprise to me.

MR. BAILEY: Object to what--

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MS. CLARK: All right. You also indicated that you found hairs on the
blue knit cap found at the crime scene?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did. Yes.

MS. CLARK: People's 56-I, your Honor, previously marked.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: Tell us what you found on the--in the evidence collected from
the blue knit cap that's shown on the screen right now, People's 56-I?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, from the knit hat, there were a number of hairs that
were removed either by Susan Brockbank, who was the original examiner on the
case, or by me.

MS. CLARK: You personally removed some collected evidence from this cap
yourself?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes. The hairs were removed from the inside and
from the outside. Shall I specify or do you want just a total number or how
would you like it?

MS. CLARK: Let's start with the total number and then we'll break it
down. First of all, did you compare the hairs recovered from that cap to those
of the Defendant?

MR. DEEDRICK: These particular hairs you're referring to, yes. I
compared all of the hairs that were suitable for comparison from the hat with a
known sample that was submitted from the Defendant, yes.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And of the hairs recovered from the cap, you indicated
already that you found hairs of the Defendant that had the same microscopic
characteristics. Can you tell us first of all how many overall head hairs did
you find that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics in that cap as the
Defendant's hair?

MR. DEEDRICK: There were 12, 12 hairs.

MS. CLARK: All right. Can you describe for us some of the microscopic
characteristics that you compared between the questioned hairs recovered from
that blue knit cap to the Defendant's hair?

MR. DEEDRICK: I could read you some of my notes if that would make any
sense. Okay. Thanks.

MS. CLARK: I hope it will.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DEEDRICK: Okay. The known sample from the Defendant consisted
of numerous dark brown head hairs with roots. Most of the hairs were under one
inch in length. The cuticle on the hair was medium thick. And again, some of
these distinctions of medium, thin and thick are just arbitrary based on how I
saw them and how I perceived them. The inner definition of the cuticle was fair
to poor. So sometimes you could see the definition, sometimes you couldn't. It
was clear there's no apparent color. The scale protrusion was slight. They
exhibited blunt tips, an elongate pigment. The pigment granules were somewhat
elongate. The clumping was not present in a lot of the hairs, and that's a
characteristic, as I mentioned before, of black individuals.

MS. CLARK: You said "Clumping"?

MR. DEEDRICK: Clumping of the pigment, yes. Some black individuals have
heavy clumping. There's don't. And in some hairs within a sample, some may be
more clumpier than others. So--the pigment granules were a medium size. The
streaking was a very com--prominent characteristic, streak in the sense that
the pigment granules line themselves up in rows and it appears that you have
streaks within the cortex. Some of the hairs indicated a coarseness of the
cellular material in the middle of the hair. Some of the hairs were patchy,
probably the most prominent characteristic of the hair sample 2, 2 being the
color, being the lighter brown coloration and one-sided pigmentation, which was
a very prominent characteristic.

MS. CLARK: What do you mean by that, a very prominent characteristic?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, some hairs come distinctive as to how the pigment
granules arrange themselves in the hair. In some individuals--and again, it may
not depend necessarily on race--that the pigment granules will find themselves
more to one side of the hair than the other. So that when you look at them
microscopically, it just looks darker on one side of the hair. The ovoid bodies
that were present were small and not very many. Cortical fusi were sparse and
most of them were located down near the proximal end or nearest to where the
root is, and that in itself is not necessarily significant. The medulla was
absent to trace, and I mentioned before, the brownish--reddish brown coloration
in the known sample. And that's how I described them.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Now those characteristics that you've just listed off
to us, those were notes that you took as to the known standard recovered from
the Defendant's head by Susan Brockbank, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That was my observations as I examined the known standard
of hairs of the Defendant under the microscope.

MS. CLARK: Did you see those same characteristics in the hairs that were
recovered from the blue knit ski cap which you determined were consistent with
those of the Defendant?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. Yes, I did. That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Now, those hairs that you determined were consistent with
those of the Defendant, were they naturally shed or forcibly removed?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they were either naturally shed or they didn't have
a root.

MS. CLARK: Okay. What does that mean?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it just means that they--as I mentioned before, that
black hairs often will break. They tend to be a little more brittle and the
cross-sectional shape is somewhat more flattened. It's not uncommon to see hair
fragments in that racial group.

MS. CLARK: And when you said hair fragments, well, you also found hair
fragments of Ron Goldman in the evidence, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And were all of the hairs that were consistent with
those of the Defendant fragments or were any full length?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. There were a number of hairs that were full length;
that is, they had a root as if they were naturally shed hairs.

MS. CLARK: Now, did you also find hairs of black origin that did not
match those, that were not consistent with those of the Defendant?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And where were they found?

MR. DEEDRICK: Again, I'd have to refer to my notes to be specific on
that.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DEEDRICK: And again, they would have been on the knit hat
either from the interior--and again, from the interior I believe most of those
were. My--the slides that were prepared by Susan Brockbank included our Q9
through Q19. Q9 through Q14 were from the interior of the hat and there were
apparently treated black head hairs found on several of the items as well as
other head hairs, other black head hairs that did not exhibit the same
characteristics.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, the hairs that were found inside the cap that were
not consistent with those of the Defendant, were they full length or were they
fragments?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. They were fragments.

MS. CLARK: And how many of those fragments were there?

MR. DEEDRICK: Can I refer to another set of notes?

(Brief pause.)

MR. DEEDRICK: There were six.

MS. CLARK: Six? Maybe I'm wrong, sir. I took notes from your notes, and
I counted--based on your notes, I counted seven. Can you tell--

MR. BAILEY: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. Excuse me, guys. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: Did you just count them, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: You could be right. I mean, I counted six in the first
batch. I can recheck if you want, if it makes a difference if there's six or
seven.

MS. CLARK: All right. Let's assume--let's assume for now--well, maybe I
can't do that. Go ahead and look. I was going to say assume there's seven. But
go ahead and look, sir.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I'm still coming up with six.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Six it is. In any case, six fragments inside the cap.
And you indicated some were treated?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. Some were treated.

MS. CLARK: Now, the conclusions that you drew concerning those six
fragments inside the cap, were those based on your comparison of them with the
known hair standard given you from the Defendant?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Do you know how long those six fragments could have been on
that ski cap?

MR. BAILEY: Well, I object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I have no idea.

MS. CLARK: Do a person's hair characteristics change over time?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, they do.

MS. CLARK: In what way?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, many ways, depending on what they do to their hair,
what type of environment they're exposed to, how much sunlight they get, if
they treat their hair. There's just a lot of different things that could happen
to hair besides the natural effects of age also.

MS. CLARK: Okay. So you don't--you can not tell us at this time whether
those six fragments found inside the cap could have been hairs deposited by the
Defendant five, six, seven years ago?

MR. BAILEY: Object. It's speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: No. As I said, there's no way to say how long those hairs
have been in that location on that item.

MS. CLARK: Is it uncommon in your experience--is it uncommon in your
experience, sir, in examining clothing to find hairs that are not consistent
with the hairs of the owner or wearer of that clothing?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: It's not uncommon. I mean, it's not uncommon to find hairs
on one's clothing that's submitted for examination that do not exhibit the same
characteristics as that person's hairs.

MS. CLARK: And that's because?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, that's why I look at the stuff in the first place.
If two people had physical contact, I look at the clothing to see if there's
anything on the clothing of one individual, say, the victim that doesn't look
like the victim's hairs. If it doesn't look like the victim's hairs, then who
could it be from? Possibly a suspect? Possibly. And that's why I do it.

MS. CLARK: Now, the only hairs on that cap that did not match the known
sample of the Defendant is the fragments that--the six fragments that you
described?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: And all the naturally shed hairs with roots from that cap
were consistent with those hairs from the Defendant?

MR. DEEDRICK: They were.

MS. CLARK: Did you also ask for known hair samples from African American
police and lab personnel in order to compare their hairs to those fragments
that you found of black origin inside the ski cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did.

MS. CLARK: And that was--were those hairs depicted on the elimination
standards board we saw earlier?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, they were.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: People's 478.

MS. CLARK: Can you please point out to us, sir, on this board which of
the photographs depict hairs of the African American lab and crime scene
personnel?

MS. CLARK: And for the record, he was gesturing to the photographs that
bear those names on People's 478, your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And none of the individuals that you've described whose
samples are depicted by a photograph on this board had hair that was consistent
with the six fragments you found inside the ski cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: No. The hairs that were recovered from the knit cat could
not have originated from these individuals.

MS. CLARK: Now, sir, did you find--sir, did you find any Caucasian head
hairs collected from that blue knit ski cap that were inconsistent with the
known hair standards of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown?

MR. DEEDRICK: There were two hairs that were recovered from my Q15 which
was from the outside of the hat which was a died head hair fragment exhibiting
Caucasian characteristics and from Q19, which again from the outside of the
cap, there was a light brown Caucasian head hair which was broken at the
proximal end, it had treatment on the hair at the distal end, is about three
inches long and it was not like--not like the victims.

MS. CLARK: Now, with respect to all of the hair evidence that we are
discussing today, sir, that was recovered from the evidence in this case, can
you tell us when the hairs were--that you compared were deposited on those
items of evidence?

MR. DEEDRICK: You're asking about all the hairs?

MS. CLARK: In general. In general. For example, let me ask you this to
make it a little easier. The hairs recovered from the blue knit ski cap, can
you tell us when any of those hairs were deposited on that item?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I can not.

MS. CLARK: And with respect to the hairs found on the Rockingham and
Bundy gloves, can you tell us when those hairs that you compared to the known
hair standards in this case were deposited on those items of evidence?

MR. DEEDRICK: There's no way to look at the hairs and make that
determination. However, from a persistent standpoint, it would indicate that
they had not been there long.

MS. CLARK: And what do you mean by a persistent standpoint, sir, and why
do you draw a distinction between those gloves and the knit cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, with regards to a knit cap, it's something that may
accumulate hairs over time, and a pair of gloves, the surface of the gloves is
not conducive to retaining hairs for any length of time so that--so that they
would tend to lose hairs very easily unless there might be some blood or some
other material that's present on the surface of the gloves to cause the hairs
to stick or to adhere. So some items would more likely lose hairs, they
wouldn't keep them very long. Some items tend to hold on to hairs a little bit
longer such as a knit hat would tend to hold on to things longer.

MS. CLARK: Now, with respect to the hairs that you looked at on the
Rockingham and Bundy gloves, did any of them have a bloody appearance to you?

MR. DEEDRICK: I'd have to check on that to be sure.

MS. CLARK: Well, why don't we come back to that.

MR. DEEDRICK: Okay.

MS. CLARK: Or would you rather check now?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, if you can wait, I'll check.

MS. CLARK: I'll wait.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DEEDRICK: On--

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. DEEDRICK: Shall I speak when I find the hairs?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

MR. DEEDRICK: Thank you. All right. On Q1, which was the Rockingham
glove, there was blood on the surface of the--apparent blood present on the
surface of the hair that were consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DEEDRICK: That was the only thing reflected in the notes.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, sir. All right. Now, getting back to those 12
hairs on the blue knit cap that you indicated exhibited the same microscopic
characteristics as those of the Defendant, did you have photographs taken of
some of the hairs--a representative sampling of the hairs from that ski cap
that you determined were consistent with those of the known standard of the
Defendant?

MR. DEEDRICK: Most of the individual hairs were photographed I believe
except for one of the hairs that I removed from the knit hat myself. So there
should be--should be about 12 pictures.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Is that People's 480?

MS. CLARK: 480, your Honor.

THE COURT: 480.

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

(Peo's 480 for id = board)

MS. CLARK: All right, sir. You indicated earlier that some of the
hairs that you found to exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as those
of the Defendant came from inside the hat and some came from outside the hat?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: If you would, sir, please indicate on each of the photos now
in 480 being shown to the jury which of those hairs was found inside and which
was found outside.

MR. DEEDRICK: Q8A, which is on the lower left-hand portion of the chart,
was from the inside, all of these first four pictures on the bottom
(Indicating). On 8C, I'm not sure where 8C came from, inside or outside.
It was unclear.

MS. CLARK: Because?

MR. DEEDRICK: There was no indication to me. It may have been from the
bag. So there's no way to know. And that's the photograph on the lower
right-hand portion of the exhibit.

MS. CLARK: So Q8A--

MS. CLARK: And for the record, your Honor, we're referring to the bottom
row of photographs so labeled.

THE COURT: Yes. Thank you.

MS. CLARK: Okay. So for Q8A, those were all inside?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right. There were four head hairs and two of these were
naturally shed.

MS. CLARK: What can you tell us about the appearance of those four
hairs, sir, Q8A found inside the knit ski cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, there was some range, as you can plainly see, from
much coarser hair, again pointing out that one-sided pigmentation that I
mentioned previously (Indicating).

MS. CLARK: And with respect to the--let me describe the position on the
photograph, on the diagram.

MS. CLARK: The photograph pointed to by Mr. Deedrick at this point was
the fourth photograph from the left, bottom row.

MR. DEEDRICK: And also, we had some of the finer hairs. The finer hairs
that were represented in the known standard of the Defendant were found in this
particular item, Q8A, which would be the first--first three photographs on the
lower portion of the chart.

MS. CLARK: And could you tell us, sir, did any of those hairs, of those
four hairs in Q8A have roots?

MR. DEEDRICK: Two of them did. There were two naturally shed hairs off
of Q8A.

MS. CLARK: Did any of those hairs have a bloody appearance?

MR. DEEDRICK: Could I refer to my notes?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes. There was indication of possible blood on the
surface of the two hairs that indicated that they had fallen out naturally,
Q8A.

MS. CLARK: And when you say indicated they had fallen out naturally,
were those the ones that had roots?

MR. DEEDRICK: They're the ones that had roots, right.

MS. CLARK: Now, Q8C, which is also depicted at the last photograph as
you face from left to right, was that hair recovered from the bag containing
the hat?

MR. DEEDRICK: That was--yes, from the bag.

MS. CLARK: And was that a hair with a root or a hair fragment?

MR. DEEDRICK: That was a fragment.

MS. CLARK: Now, if you could, sir, please explain, describe--are there
any other characteristics that you have not pointed out that you would like to
point out to the jury that cause you to come to the conclusion that they
exhibited--the Defendant's hairs exhibited the same microscopic characteristics
as those recovered from the blue knit cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, I've gone over a little bit of the process involved
in trying to determine if a questioned hair originated from an individual. And
one of the ways to do that when you have multiple hairs is to look at the range
of the questioned hairs and see if the same range is exhibited by the known
hairs. And if you can look at the known hair samples that were photographed on
the upper portion of the chart, I chose hairs that exhibited a similar
appearance as to the characteristics that that hair exhibited, whether it was
coarse and dark with one-sided pigmentation, whether it was lighter with
one-sided pigmentation or if it was fine and exhibited the same coloration and
diameter and internal characteristics. And again, we're looking at just a very
small portion of both questioned hair and known hair.

MS. CLARK: When you say, "We're looking at just a small portion," you
mean that's what the jury is seeing right now. You saw more?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the comparison that I do involves the entire hair,
and I chose a portion of the hair to demonstrate the association.

MS. CLARK: All right. Thank you, sir.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Would it be all right, your Honor, if we showed the
board to the corners of the jury, because I don't think they're getting as good
a view. Thank you.

(The exhibit board was viewed by the jury.)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, gentlemen.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: People's 481, your Honor?

THE COURT: People's 481.

(Peo's 481 for id = board)

MS. CLARK: All right. Mr. Deedrick, if you wouldn't mind stepping
down to explain to the jury what's depicted in these photographs. You indicated
I think we've seen some of the hairs recovered from the inside of the cap which
you determined to be consistent with those of the Defendant. And do these--what
do these photographs depict?

(The witness complies.)

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, these are additional hairs taken from Q10 on
the lower left, Q13, which is the second photograph on the bottom, Q14, third
photograph, Q18 and 47.

MS. CLARK: Can you tell us, sir, which of these photographs depict hairs
recovered from the inside of the knit cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, Q47 came from the inside, which was one of the hairs
that I removed. I'm sorry. What was the first number down there?

MS. CLARK: Q10?

MR. DEEDRICK: Q10 was from the interior. Q13 was from the interior. Q14
was from the interior. Q18 was from the exterior.

MS. CLARK: All right. Q23?

MR. DEEDRICK: Q23 came from Ronald Goldman's shirt.

MS. CLARK: All right. So of the hairs from the blue knit cap, Q10, 13
and 14 were--and Q47 were all hairs recovered from the inside of the knit cap
that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of the
Defendant?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And Q18 was from the exterior of the knit cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: Can you describe for us, sir--you said you recovered Q47
yourself?

MR. DEEDRICK: There were two hairs from Q47, and I removed--I
photographed one of the hairs.

MS. CLARK: We see that one that you photographed here on the board?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: Those two hairs that you found that exhibited the same
microscopic characteristics as those of the Defendant that you labeled Q47, can
you describe where they were in the hat when you found them?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, they were actually part of the fabric. After turning
the hat inside out looking at the hat very closely under magnification, had to
actually pull the hairs out from the arms. It happens sometimes if the hairs
have been in there for a period of time, that they tend to become actually part
of the fabric. It's very difficult to see because the hat was dark.

MS. CLARK: And what--what kind of hairs were they? Were they fragment
hairs, forcibly removed? Describe--

MR. DEEDRICK: They were naturally shed hairs.

MS. CLARK: Which means that--

MR. DEEDRICK: They had a root.

MS. CLARK: Both of them?

MR. DEEDRICK: Both of them.

MS. CLARK: So how many hairs total that you found to exhibit the same
microscopic characteristics as those of the Defendant were found inside the
knit cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: Okay. From the inside of the knit cap, there were four
hairs off of Q8A, one from Q10, that's five, Q13 makes six, Q14 makes seven.
There were seven.

MS. CLARK: What about Q47?

MR. DEEDRICK: I'm sorry. Made nine. You're right. Apologize.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Q8C that we indicated came from the bag containing the
cap, could that have come from the inside?

MR. DEEDRICK: It could have. I he don't know where it came from.

MS. CLARK: Okay. So nine, possibly 10 hairs found inside the knit cap
exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those hairs of the
Defendant?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.

MS. CLARK: What about on the outside of the knit cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, on the outside, there was a full-length hair with a
root, which was Q8B1 and also Q18.

MS. CLARK: Can you describe for us, sir, the condition of those two
hairs that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of the
Defendant that you found on the outside of the knit cap?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, the one on Q18 was just a fragment. It was a portion
of a hair, head hair, and on Q8B1, it had--it had a root and also had what
appeared to be a little tag on it.

MS. CLARK: What's a tag?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, a tag is a little extension of the root that is
sometimes confused with follicular tissue. Follicular tissue is part of the
skin where the hair is actually attached. It's more--it's a harder substance.
Just forms a little extension and we call it tags.

MS. CLARK: Well, wouldn't the existence of that tag indicate that the
hair had been pulled out?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MS. CLARK: With respect to whether or not the hair was forcibly removed
or naturally shed, does the existence of that tag from the hair follicle have
any significance in that determination?

MR. DEEDRICK: No.

MS. CLARK: So the existence of that tag does not indicate necessarily
that hair was forcibly removed or not?

MR. DEEDRICK: Does not indicate that, no.

MS. CLARK: What does it indicate?

MR. DEEDRICK: Indicates it has a tag.

MS. CLARK: All right. We talked before about the--why don't you take a
seat for a minute, sir, and I'll put this down.

(The witness complies.)

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: We were talking earlier I believe about primary and secondary
transfer. Do you recall that, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: I do.

MS. CLARK: Now, do you have an opinion, sir, concerning whether or not
the hairs inside the blue knit cap that exhibited the same microscopic
characteristics as those of the Defendant were deposited there by means of
primary transfer, that is wearing the cap, or secondary transfer, picking it up
from somewhere else?

MR. BAILEY: Object. Speculate.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Sir, does the existence of--in a general sense, do the--does
the presence of a number of hairs in a certain position on an item of clothing
have significance to you with respect to whether or not it is--the hairs got
there by primary or secondary transfer?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, on the--on the inside of undershorts, I might think
that that's probably a primary transfer.

MS. CLARK: Okay.

MR. DEEDRICK: On the inside of a hat, I would also expect to see
logically a primary transfer.

MS. CLARK: Then in that regard, sir, with respect to the nine or 10
hairs that exhibited the same microscopic characteristics as those of the
Defendant inside the knit cap, do you have an opinion as to whether--how those
hairs got there, by primary or secondary transfer?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Because hats are worn on the head, as we all know, and in
combining that with the transfer or loss of hair, it's certainly consistent and
reasonable to believe that their presence indicates that they came from a
wearer of the hat, yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, you indicated that you also found a hair on the shirt of
Ron Goldman.

MS. CLARK: Could we cut the feed, please, your Honor? People's 43F.

MS. CLARK: Do you know where on the shirt that that hair was
recovered?

MR. DEEDRICK: I do not.

MS. CLARK: Can you describe the hair that you found that was recovered
from Ron Goldman's shirt?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it was a very short head hair fragment.

MS. CLARK: Was it suitable for comparison?

MR. DEEDRICK: I thought so, yes.

MS. CLARK: And did you cause a photograph to be taken of that hair that
was recovered from Ron Goldman's shirt?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did and was part of the last exhibit.

MS. CLARK: I think you indicated before and is so labeled, Q23?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Can you please point that out, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: Be glad to. The photograph on the lower right-hand portion
of the chart second from the right labeled as Q23 (Indicating), hair
from Goldman's shirt, and that's a photograph, again, about 250 times
magnification of that hair.

MS. CLARK: Now, you indicated earlier there was an elimination standard
board in which you indicated there was hair of African American lab and crime
scene police personnel whose hair was taken for purposes of comparison?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MS. CLARK: Did you compare their hairs to this--to this Q23 hair found
on Ron Goldman's shirt?

MR. DEEDRICK: I compared all of the questioned hairs with all of the
elimination hairs. It included Q23.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: That elimination head hair samples board was
previously marked as People's--

THE COURT: 478.

MS. CLARK: 478. Thank you. Your Honor.

MS. CLARK: All right. Now, you compared then the hairs of Sandra
Claiborne, Gene Braggs and Claudine Ratcliffe and Don Thompson as shown on that
board to the hair found on Ron Goldman's shirt which you labeled on People's
481 Q23?

MR. DEEDRICK: I did, yes.

MS. CLARK: And what was your opinion concerning whether or not any of
their hairs were consistent with the Q23 hair found on Ron Goldman's shirt?

MR. DEEDRICK: The questioned hair recovered from Ronald Goldman's shirt,
Q23, could not have originated from these individuals.

MS. CLARK: And on what do you base that opinion, sir?

MR. DEEDRICK: Based upon a comparison of the microscopic characteristics
that were exhibited by the known standards and the questioned hair.

MS. CLARK: Well, can you explain, sir, why you concluded that Sandra
Claiborne's hair as depicted on People's 478 could not have been the source of
the Q23 hair on People's 481?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, besides the fact that the photographs look
different, I--again, I didn't base it solely on this. I looked at the entire
hair and the characteristics of the entire sample.

MS. CLARK: Are there some--

MR. DEEDRICK: It's much darker--it's much darker in pigmentation and
it's quite a bit larger.

MS. CLARK: Larger?

MR. DEEDRICK: In diameter.

MS. CLARK: Thicker?

MR. DEEDRICK: Thicker than most of the hairs that I was seeing.

MS. CLARK: Is that a characteristics that you also compare, sir,
thickness?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, it is.

MS. CLARK: What about the hair of Gene Braggs? Does that look--can you
explain to us why you ruled out Gene Braggs as a possible source of the hair
found that you labeled Q23?

MR. DEEDRICK: Could I step down?

MS. CLARK: Please. I'm sorry.

MR. DEEDRICK: Thanks. Okay. With Gene Braggs, one of the characteristics
I mentioned before was pigment clumping. You see prominent pigment clumping or
patching a couple different areas, also some streakiness of the tissue that's
found in the very center of the hair. So just an area that represented some of
the characteristics that were present in Gene Braggs' head hair standard.
Again, the comparison is not by photograph. It's an overall process, the curl
of the hair, the buckling that appears in the hair shaft, the diameter,
thickness of the hair, the appearance of the tip, the appearance of the root,
all of these things are thrown into this comparison process besides this--this
250 magnification piece of a hair, which is quite small.

MS. CLARK: Did you have any further remarks to make about the
distinctions you drew between Sandra Claiborne's hair and the Q23 hair?

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, there is a little buckle here--I don't know if you
saw that--this little indentation. With black individuals, the hair shaft may
tend to twist on itself a little bit and it's called buckling. Just a
characteristic that is found within that group of individuals. The one-sided
pigmentation you don't quite see. It wasn't present on all of the Defendant's
hairs, but it was a prominent characteristic. But again, it did not exhibit the
same characteristics as the Defendant's hairs.

MS. CLARK: Or the Q23 hair?

MR. DEEDRICK: Or Q23.

MS. CLARK: Now--you can have a seat for a moment, sir.

(The witness complies.)

MS. CLARK: All right. Referring you back, sir, to People's
exhibit 475--it's an atlas of the photograph that you brought from the FBI
depicting 16 different individuals of black origin--you indicated, sir, that
you prepared this in order to show us, demonstrate for us the variation that
you can find.

MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Well, it would appear that the lower--let me see if I can
count it down. At the bottom row as I face it from left to right, it would
appear that the third one to the right looks just like the photographs that you
prepared of the known samples of the Defendant and the photographs of the
evidence--some of the evidence hairs that were recovered from the blue knit
cap.

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, it is hair from the Defendant. I included that in
the exhibit.

MS. CLARK: Can you please point out to the jury the hair exactly that
you're referring to and that I've referred to?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah. The hair on the lower right-hand portion, third hair
photograph from the left-hand side. That was a known sample of hair from the
Defendant's hair sampling (Indicating).

MS. CLARK: Thank you, sir.

THE COURT: What was our exhibit number on that, Miss Clark?

MS. CLARK: 475, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry, your Honor. The 16 individuals board was 464.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: Can we now show this board, your Honor?

(The exhibit board was shown to the jury.)

THE COURT: Thank you, gentlemen.

MS. CLARK: May I?

MS. CLARK: Now, sir, is your finding--

MS. CLARK: Oh, if I may reveal the results on the results board
pertaining to Defendant.

MS. CLARK: Is your finding, sir, of a head hair that exhibits the same
microscopic characteristics as those found in the Defendant's hair, would you
say that that was consistent with the Defendant having had some physical
contact with Ronald Goldman?

MR. BAILEY: I object. That's speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained. It's a vague question.

MS. CLARK: You earlier spoke to us about primary, secondary transfer of
hairs. When individuals have contact through a violent struggle, have you in
your past experience found the hairs of the attacker on the clothing of the
victim?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Irrelevant, past experience speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, I have. That's why--that's why I look at clothing
from victims of crime.

MS. CLARK: And is your finding of a head hair consistent with the hairs
of those of the Defendant on Ronald Goldman's shirt consistent with the
Defendant having attacked Ronald Goldman on the night of June the 12th?

MR. BAILEY: Object. Speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Is it consistent with the Defendant having had contact with
Ronald Goldman?

MR. BAILEY: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Is the finding of a head hair on the shirt of Ronald Goldman
consistent with those hairs of the Defendant consistent with a primary transfer
from the head--

MR. BAILEY: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: --of the Defendant to the shirt of Ronald Goldman?

MR. DEEDRICK: Probably more so towards secondary type transfer as
opposed to primary.

MS. CLARK: Please explain.

MR. DEEDRICK: Well, a primary transfer would best be demonstrated by
hair that's been forcibly removed that has a root that indicates it may have
come out during a struggle. That's probably the best way to do that, to make
that determination. A hair fragment on the other hand would more likely be
found on the exterior clothing of an individual and to have been transferred in
that way. That would be more--what I would think would be more likely
explanation as a secondary transfer as opposed to primary.

MS. CLARK: And you indicated to us earlier, sir, that it's very common
to find the hairs of a person on his own clothing.

MR. DEEDRICK: It's very common, yes.

MS. CLARK: Then would the finding of the hair fragment that exhibited
the same microscopic characteristics as those of the Defendant on Ron Goldman's
shirt be consistent with the Defendant having grabbed Ron Goldman from behind,
wrapping his left arm around him in an effort to stab him with the right hand
in which his clothing would come into contact with the shirt of Ron Goldman?

MR. BAILEY: Objection. Speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: All right. Could--would you expect to find hairs from an
attacker on clothing of the victim if there was no bodily physical contact
between them?

MR. BAILEY: Object and ask for a sidebar.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DEEDRICK: I wouldn't expect to find anything if there was no
physical contact. It's possible that hairs may be blown off of clothing, but
that would more likely--it's more reasonable to believe that the actual
physical contact results in the transfer, especially of hairs.

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, before we take
our recess for the day, I just wanted to take this opportunity to call to your
attention Miss Jennifer Fitzpatrick who is back in the back there. She's been
the operator of our whizbang--what we call the whizbang system. This is
our fancy media system. And as you know, so far this trial in over five months
or six months, we've only had one foul-up, and that was when the power died,
and that wasn't her fault. And she is going to be returning to her law firm of
Doiche, Kerrigan and Stiles in the Big Easy. She's from New Orleans, and
she will be returning there. And Miss Fitzpatrick, I want to on behalf of the
parties in the Court thank you for your service.

(Applause.)

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen--Mr. Deedrick, you can
step down. Ladies and gentlemen, please remember all my admonitions to you;
don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any opinions about the case,
conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, don't get
burned by any fireworks, don't let anybody communicate with you. Have a nice
holiday weekend. All right. We'll stand in recess--counsel, we have some
other--I have some other matters to attend to Monday morning. We'll stand in
recess until--excuse me--Wednesday morning 10:30. All right. Thank you,
counsel.